Eight major studies of identical twins in Australia, the U.S., and Scandinavia during the last two decades all arrive at the same conclusion: gays were not born that way.

“At best genetics is a minor factor,” says Dr. Neil Whitehead, PhD. Whitehead worked for the New Zealand government as a scientific researcher for 24 years, then spent four years working for the United Nations and International Atomic Energy Agency. Most recently, he serves as a consultant to Japanese universities about the effects of radiation exposure. His PhD is in biochemistry and statistics.

Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay.

“Because they have identical DNA, it ought to be 100%,” Dr. Whitehead notes. But the studies reveal something else. “If an identical twin has same-sex attraction the chances the co-twin has it are only about 11% for men and 14% for women.”

“No-one is born gay,” he notes. “The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.”

Dr. Whitehead believes same-sex attraction (SSA) is caused by “non-shared factors,” things happening to one twin but not the other, or a personal response to an event by one of the twins and not the other.

For example, one twin might have exposure to pornography or sexual abuse, but not the other. One twin may interpret and respond to their family or classroom environment differently than the other.

“These individual and idiosyncratic responses to random events and to common environmental factors predominate,” he says.

The first very large, reliable study of identical twins was conducted in Australia in 1991, followed by a large U.S. study about 1997. Then Australia and the U.S. conducted more twin studies in 2000, followed by several studies in Scandinavia, according to Dr. Whitehead.

“Twin registers are the foundation of modern twin studies. They are now very large, and exist in many countries. A gigantic European twin register with a projected 600,000 members is being organized, but one of the largest in use is in Australia, with more than 25,000 twins on the books.”

A significant twin study among adolescents shows an even weaker genetic correlation. In 2002 Bearman and Brueckner studied tens of thousands of adolescent students in the U.S. The same-sex attraction concordance between identical twins was only 7.7% for males and 5.3% for females—lower than the 11% and 14% in the Australian study by Bailey et al conducted in 2000.

In the identical twin studies, Dr. Whitehead has been struck by how fluid and changeable sexual identity can be.

“Neutral academic surveys show there is substantial change. About half of the homosexual/bisexual population (in a non-therapeutic environment) moves towards heterosexuality over a lifetime. About 3% of the present heterosexual population once firmly believed themselves to be homosexual or bisexual.”

There are more and more gay men/women in this country than there ever was before. Large major cities esp are just flooded with these people.

The gay/lesbian population aren't the ones who are reproducing in this country. They usually adopt....very few do the surrogate thing etc. Yet the number of gays/lesbians continue to rise at an almost exponential rate within the last 30-40 yrs. If being gay was "genetic" then that particular mutation in the genetic/hormonal makeup would eventually die off, because there's not enough of them to reproduce. You'd see a decline in the number of gays if it was genetic.

We are not discussing those who chose to be bisexual. "Chose" to swing both ways. Those people have a right to do whatever they want in the provacy of their own bedrooms without anyone passing laws to make it illegal.

But, we are not talking about them. We are talking about the ones who have been gay since birth. Who just want to love who they love just like anyone else.

Brainaic laid out why no one would "chose" to be gay. It's just an attempt to not be labeled a homophobe.

Who the hell are YOU to define someone's sexuality? Are you authority on who people have attraction and affection for? Did this example stop being gay when he married, was he born gay, or was it a lifestyle choice?

Gay is not a disease. I just said it's not black and white like you are trying to assert. You don't just 'have it' or 'not have it'.

Who the hell are YOU to define someone's sexuality? Are you authority on who people have attraction and affection for? Did this example stop being gay when he married, was he born gay, or was it a lifestyle choice?

Gay is not a disease. I just said it's not black and white like you are trying to assert. You don't just 'have it' or 'not have it'.

I'm defending the rights of anyone to marry the person they love. For homosexuals couples to be treated the same as heterosexual couples by the courts and government. I'm defending Brainac's nephew to be who he really is, to pursue whatever he wants in life without society telling him he must remain in the closet or suffer consequences.

With the advent of gene mapping it seems that a "genetic" causation of homosexuallity would have been easily determined. I think at this time it's just a nice buzzword for the gheys to use to push their agendas

It's a two edged sword, isolating genetic markers for homosexuality suggests a possibility of a 'cure.'

Not only that, but WHY IN THE HELL would anyone CHOOSE to be gay? Why would anyone choose to be hated, mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against, and often beat up or killed?

It makes ZERO sense. But it's a helluva lot easier to hate, mock, ridicule, beat up and kill gay people if you rationalize it by saying "Well, he asked for it, because he CHOSE to be gay".

I have a nephew who is gay. It was pretty obvious for the last 10 years or so that he is gay (he just came out of the closet an age 22). He is also very socially awkward and unhappy. He did not choose to be that way. He just is.

This is the weakest argument on the gay friendly side of the ledger. There are tons of homosexuals living happy, open, trouble-free lives. They find a comfortable community and comradery within it.

We are not discussing those who chose to be bisexual. "Chose" to swing both ways. Those people have a right to do whatever they want in the provacy of their own bedrooms without anyone passing laws to make it illegal.

But, we are not talking about them. We are talking about the ones who have been gay since birth. Who just want to love who they love just like anyone else.

Brainaic laid out why no one would "chose" to be gay. It's just an attempt to not be labeled a homophobe.

No, someone suggested that some people choose to be gay, which isn't really very unreasonable and almost certainly true in some situations, but you painted that as intolerance and closed mindedness.

They're probably born that way but this argument doesn't matter. The real issue is how the Democrats are trying to create yet another "victim group" to add to their voting rolls. And if society is going to allow this new victim group to be granted special (un-constitutional) benefits i.e. affirmative action, quotas, etc etc.

That's really the issue. And we all know what the Democrats want to do.